Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
June 19, 2013, 09:44:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
 
Author Topic: Conversation with Fr. James Gordon, FSSP, about Vatican II  (Read 5506 times)
Gerard
Banned for disrespecting the Holy Father, snarkiness, and rad-traddy negativism
Member

Posts: 4,699



« Reply #60 on: December 31, 2011, 03:16:AM »

I second that. He and I may disagree concerning the SSPX, but he is a very holy priest. I would advise anyone to be careful when criticizing a priest directly. Even if the priest is up to his eyeballs in sin, it is more offensive to God for one to judge a priest, for He regards it as an attack on Himself.

Charles Coulombe relates a story about a priest who left the priesthood and consecrated a bottle of wine in a restaurant out of spite.  The gentleman he was with took the bottle from him, drank it down and told the priest he would kill him if he ever attempted such a thing again. 

He also relates a story about a man who shot a priest who was trying to rape his wife. 

See this link for  audio:
 
http://www.tumblarhouse.com/audio.php

Anticlericalism

"A priest is an "altar christus", or other Christ, because he acts in the image and likeness of God, dispensing graces through the Sacraments. But what if our local parish priest spouts heresy? Or steals from the collection? Or frequently violates liturgical rubrics? Is he still entitled to our respect? To what extent may you criticize him? "
Logged
tradne4163
Gold Fish
*
Gender: Male
Location: Omaha, NE
Personality type: ADHD poster child... hey, look at that kitty!
Posts: 1,652



« Reply #61 on: December 31, 2011, 05:36:AM »

Read what I said again. I didn't say 'never criticize a priest.' I advised to be careful when doing so. One of course can criticize specific actions, but impugning a priest's character is a whole other matter. There's a very fine line between the two. Even when taking issue with specific actions, one needs to be careful. The priestly office  is owed respect.
Ex: We trads tend to trade horror stories of liturgical abuse and why it was out of line. Good
Ex: Implying or outright saying that the priest in question has a moral defect. Not Good.
Does that help clarify my position?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 06:19:AM by tradne4163 » Logged

There's no such thing as "same sex marriage." Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.


We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

There is nothing more necessary to the survival of the Church than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; to hide it from sight is to shake the foundations of the Church. The whole Christian, religious, priestly life rests on the Cross, on the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross renewed on the altar. --- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

I beg you to pray for priests, most especially those on the road to Hell. They do not enter there alone, but with thousands of others that have followed them.
INPEFESS
Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
Member

Gender: Male
Personality type: Mostly melancholic
Posts: 10,860


† "If anyone love Me, he will keep My word." †


« Reply #62 on: December 31, 2011, 05:56:AM »

Baptism of desire or of blood are not the tap root of the problems we have today. Folks today believe every one goes to heaven because God is all merciful and ignores justice. This incessant harping on this baptism is a straw man. Go out and evangelize, not this going over the same territory over and over.

This "all good dogs go to heaven" heresy has it's roots in Calvinism double predestination and that those predestined are blessed by God with money and prosperity, conversely those without predestination go to Hell. This has morphed with the health and wealth gospell which says God wants everyone to be rich if you just pray like the televangelists tell folks to do. From there it is a small step to God wants all of us to go to Heaven and his Mercy makes it happen. In other words God's Justice is ignored.

Moreover, Baptism of Desire was taught before Vatican II, along with Baptism of Blood . These are not suspect, though not well defined. They like many others in the Church, operation is known only by God . Leave it alone. We have large issues to deal with like re-evangelizing the 25 million Catholics that left directly after the changes and are starving for the TLM.

[...]

Well said!
Logged

I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no.  9, June 29, 1896).

“Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time” (2 Peter 1:10).

Vincentius
Gold Fish
*
Location: Now in actual "exile" in the Pacific islands
Posts: 2,542



WWW
« Reply #63 on: December 31, 2011, 06:01:AM »


BOD is so rare that we don't actually know when it has been applied.  I don't know of any instance about anybody who actually didn't make it to his Baptism.  Do you?


There have been a few recorded instances of specific cases in which baptism of desire has been applied.

Pope Innocent II, basing himself on the authority of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, taught that a priest who had died without the water of baptism would still be freed from original sin because of his desire for baptism (Denzinger 388). The same pope relays the fact that St. Ambrose taught the same regarding a man named Valentinian who died before receiving the baptism he desired to receive (ibid.).

Pope Innocent III also taught that an unnamed Jewish man received baptism of desire (Dz. 413). Although the man did not receive a valid baptism, because he tried to administer it to himself at the moment of death, his faith in the sacrament sufficed to cleanse him from original sin (ibid.).   

Those who reject baptism of desire will probably object that the above examples are not ex cathedra teachings. I will reply that the Council of Trent explicitly taught baptism of desire in a solemn definition. They will reply that Trent teaches that desire and water are needed, although it says desire or water. The debate will then  become pointless as we wrangle over the meaning of aut in Trent. Nevertheless, there you have it, two popes far removed from Modernism teaching baptism of desire.

I know of the above cases.  What I meant was from our personal experience, has anybody known about somebody preparing for and not making it to the Baptism because of some untoward incident that took his life.  It is then that we can say, "He most probably was saved."   More probabilities:  since Baptism remits all sins including the penalties attached to them, this person would bypass Purgatory.  Of course the anti-BODs and Feeneyites would never buy these and the whole thing is moot. 

In the 40 days before Christ ascended to Heaven there isn't much recorded by the holy Scriptures about what Christ and the Apostles (and other disciples) did.  But we know that He told them:   

John 16:
12   I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.

John 14:
26 ... the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Was any teaching left out leading to Pentecost and beyond?   Hardly.   I believe everything was covered, since the Church's main preoccupation (lex suprema - supreme law) is the salvation of souls.   That includes the teaching of desire for Baptism and the desire for martyrdom.  But the anti's want the extraordinary and infallible declaration from the Magisterium and nothing else will do.

When we listen to the Dimonds and Feeney followers "preach," we ask who gave them the authority and where did they get the commission to preach?   Jesus Himself was asked, "Who sent you?"  (Matthew 21:23)   
Logged

http://www.alcazar.net

Anything we do without offering it to God, is wasted.” -- St. John Vianney, The Curé of Ars

When next you hear some attack called an idle paradox, Ask after the dox.  Pursue the dox; persecute the dox. In short ask the dox whether it is orthodox.
---G.K. Chesterton, Daily News, October 28, 1911

God Himself does not propose to judge a man until he is dead. So why should you?

In thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me never be confounded: deliver me in thy justice.

The world was to be saved by the preaching of the Cross and on the Eucharist, and not by human wisdom or eloquence
Gerard
Banned for disrespecting the Holy Father, snarkiness, and rad-traddy negativism
Member

Posts: 4,699



« Reply #64 on: December 31, 2011, 10:57:AM »

Read what I said again. I didn't say 'never criticize a priest.' I advised to be careful when doing so. One of course can criticize specific actions, but impugning a priest's character is a whole other matter. There's a very fine line between the two. Even when taking issue with specific actions, one needs to be careful. The priestly office  is owed respect.
Ex: We trads tend to trade horror stories of liturgical abuse and why it was out of line. Good
Ex: Implying or outright saying that the priest in question has a moral defect. Not Good.
Does that help clarify my position? 

I read it and I understood it. I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear and concise.  I wrote it late last night.  What I was pointing out was that Christ does not automatically side with the priest and condemn the opponent of the priest as if he is attacking Christ himself as your previous post implied.  I'm certain that you understand the nuances of being prudential without compromising the truth.
 
What you are basically stating in your wording is "Be careful.  You are ipso facto attacking Christ."  I was worried that people may be confused by that idea, thinking you are sayi
Logged


Albino_Luciani
Member

Posts: 228



« Reply #65 on: December 31, 2011, 12:09:PM »

And I was speaking from experience as one who asked the question and received the answer.  You can expect the same results from every FSSP priest since the release of Summorum Pontificum.  Makes the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest a more desirable option.
Logged

The gravest consequence of the New Rite is the dishonor of God. The iconostasis of silence has been dismantled. The Lord is called forth in a vulgar tongue, in words composed by His enemies. His Presence is ignored, His Person is demeaned. He is handled clumsily: if He falls, it does not matter. He is placed on unblessed tables, segregated from His friends. His garments have been reduced. He, The King of Kings in the state of Immolation, is placed in vulgar, primitive vessels. As the people stand or sit, and think that they are listening to a mere tale, He is crucified and dies before their eyes. He is raised above their heads: “Behold the Lamb of God!” they stand and stare. He is delivered over to them: He, Almighty God, their Creator and their Highest Good. He is placed in their unclean hands.
tradne4163
Gold Fish
*
Gender: Male
Location: Omaha, NE
Personality type: ADHD poster child... hey, look at that kitty!
Posts: 1,652



« Reply #66 on: January 01, 2012, 03:03:PM »

Just wanted to make a correction. I talked to Father Terrence Gordon, and he told me that it was not he who debated Peter Dimond. The title had it right after all.  Blush
Wow, I never would have guessed just from the sound of his voice.

Logged

There's no such thing as "same sex marriage." Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.


We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

There is nothing more necessary to the survival of the Church than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; to hide it from sight is to shake the foundations of the Church. The whole Christian, religious, priestly life rests on the Cross, on the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross renewed on the altar. --- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

I beg you to pray for priests, most especially those on the road to Hell. They do not enter there alone, but with thousands of others that have followed them.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC